MANDATORY health insurance

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you only knew how much more we in the United States pay for prescription drugs because Canadians enjoy a government price-controlled discount.

I would urge you to get better informed on this topic. Seems to me that a free-market lover like you would have a better understanding of what exactly it is that has resulted in the low prices (and the government regulation is one, and ultimately, minor, factor).
 
Sarcasm is the easy part.

You know, we rightly take pride in the millions of lives saved in Africa with immunization shots and Antiretroviral drugs without even stopping to ponder why it is we who are in the position to offer amazing, lifesaving technologies to those trapped in utter, systemic despair and not the other way around.

(hint) It's not because we are better people.
 
Interesting that you use this as an example.

Given that it was those socialist Canadians who discovered insulin as a treatment for diabetes, and subsequently "sold" that discovery to Eli Lilly.

So yes, we owe it to the communists in this instance, imagine that.

And I'm guessing you sold it for a profit.
 
Sarcasm is the easy part.

You know, we rightly take pride in the millions of lives saved in Africa with immunization shots and Antiretroviral drugs without even stopping to ponder why it is we who are in the position to offer amazing, lifesaving technologies to those trapped in utter, systemic despair and not the other way around.

(hint) It's not because we are better people.

Another great example that backfires in your face...

We've been immunized for how long? But they haven't because why? It's not profittable for big pharma. Yay free markets. :|

You just don't seem to understand, yes research needs money but it still strives outside of greed and obscene inhumane business practices.
 
And I'm guessing you sold it for a profit.

And no one said profit is wrong, or that it won't still exists...

I appreciate that you have been the only one to attempt to offer an alternative but the alternative was extremely short sighted and is based on some bad assumptions.

I asked you about sources for your numbers and I got nothing.

You seem to avoid any example that proves your stance incorrect...

I'm sorry but I just haven't yet found anyone that really has a legitimate reason against or that is truly informed about their opposition.

I agree that the speed can be overwhelming and that the devil's in the details, but everything else just seems uninformed partisan line towing...
 
And I'm guessing you sold it for a profit.

And that just shows that you pretty much know nothing about who developed insulin, when, how, or the huge amounts of money that he decided to turn DOWN from various sources. But I guess he was just a socialist in the end.

Banting chose to collaborate with Eli Lilly in exchange for them being granted exclusive rights to sell insulin for 12 months in the US.

I think it must seem foreign to you that he wasn't driven by profit margins....
 
And that just shows that you pretty much know nothing about who developed insulin, when, how, or the huge amounts of money that he decided to turn DOWN from various sources. But I guess he was just a socialist in the end.

Banting chose to collaborate with Eli Lilly in exchange for them being granted exclusive rights to sell insulin for 12 months in the US.

I think it must seem foreign to you that he wasn't driven by profit margins....

I was talking about recombinant dna human insulin you know? Not the old pork or beef insulin. I had to look up the exact date but Frederick Banting died in 1941. 30 years before the recombinant dna research of the 70's and 40 years before Humulin hit the market.

Great scientist, but I don't think he had much to do with the technology I was talking up.
 
Great scientist, but I don't think he had much to do with the technology I was talking up.

It was Banting's discovery that led to the production of Humulin, that much should be obvious to you.

Much like Edward Jenner's work is what ultimately led to the development of the smallpox vaccine, and why he is considered the father of immunology in general.

But since you seem intent on showing the rest of the world how superior Americans are, keep at it. The other 6 billion of us don't see that sort of attitude as anything new. :shrug:
 
I appreciate that you have been the only one to attempt to offer an alternative but the alternative was extremely short sighted and is based on some bad assumptions.

I asked you about sources for your numbers and I got nothing.
And I asked you if they were wrong. You could always look them up you know BVS. Took me about a minute.
The United States currently operates under a mixed market health care system. Government sources (federal, state, and local) account for 45% of U.S. health care expenditures. Private sources account for the remainder with 38% of people receiving health coverage through their employer and 17% arising from other private payment such as private insurance and out-of-pocket copays.
Health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You seem to avoid any example that proves your stance incorrect...

I'm sorry but I just haven't yet found anyone that really has a legitimate reason against or that is truly informed about their opposition.
Kinda like same-sex marriage right? Not one, one legitimate reason at all to be against it and only an uniformed individual would think otherwise.
I agree that the speed can be overwhelming and that the devil's in the details, but everything else just seems uninformed partisan line towing...
And all those folks with the identical "Health Care Reform Now!" and "Health Care For America" signs each studied and read the bill at hand closely and with great deliberation before aligning themselves with the Democrats on this issue. Right?
 
It was Banting's discovery that led to the production of Humulin, that much should be obvious to you.

Much like Edward Jenner's work is what ultimately led to the development of the smallpox vaccine, and why he is considered the father of immunology in general.

But since you seem intent on showing the rest of the world how superior Americans are, keep at it. The other 6 billion of us don't see that sort of attitude as anything new. :shrug:

I think it's part of the American exceptionalism creed. Thou shall not admit the accomplishments of others nor the weaknesses of ourselves.
 
And I asked you if they were wrong. You could always look them up you know BVS. Took me about a minute.
And I admitted to you that I didn't know. I've never seen it broken down that way and that's why I was asking. I did a search and couldn't find a consistent answer, that's why I was honestly asking you for a source. These wiki numbers coincide with some of the sites I saw, but not with others, none of the sites I considered to be incredibly reliable, that's why I didn't post them. But thank you.


Kinda like same-sex marriage right? Not one, one legitimate reason at all to be against it and only an uniformed individual would think otherwise.
No this subject is not nearly as cut and dry. I'm not saying that I haven't seen a legitimate reason because there isn't one, I haven't seen one because I've only been offered very little from conservatives on this issue.

And all those folks with the identical "Health Care Reform Now!" and "Health Care For America" signs each studied and read the bill at hand closely and with great deliberation before aligning themselves with the Democrats on this issue. Right?

Nope. It's kinda like religion, some actually study it and choose it because it's the right religion for them, others are born into it, and others just because it's convenient. That's just life.
 
It was Banting's discovery that led to the production of Humulin, that much should be obvious to you.

Much like Edward Jenner's work is what ultimately led to the development of the smallpox vaccine, and why he is considered the father of immunology in general.

But since you seem intent on showing the rest of the world how superior Americans are, keep at it. The other 6 billion of us don't see that sort of attitude as anything new. :shrug:

All I can say is, if Frederick Banting invented recombinant DNA (a technique not even proposed until decades after he was dead) insulin then Guy Lombardo surely invented rock n roll.

I don't wish to denigrate the good professor's contributions to medicine and humanity in any way, but let's stick to facts shall we.
 
No this subject is not nearly as cut and dry. I'm not saying that I haven't seen a legitimate reason because there isn't one, I haven't seen one because I've only been offered very little from conservatives on this issue.

And where's the evidence after 40 years, that the United States government can manage, administer and fund healthcare without going into debt?
But there's always another politician to say "If we just spend more money we can fix the system."
Now you might believe that but I know better.
 
All I can say is, if Frederick Banting invented recombinant DNA (a technique not even proposed until decades after he was dead) insulin then Guy Lombardo surely invented rock n roll.

I don't wish to denigrate the good professor's contributions to medicine and humanity in any way, but let's stick to facts shall we.

Sarcasm is the easy part.

.
 
And where's the evidence after 40 years, that the United States government can manage, administer and fund healthcare without going into debt?
But there's always another politician to say "If we just spend more money we can fix the system."
Now you might believe that but I know better.

At what point is human life put to the wayside of $$$?

Conservatives never worry about where the money is coming from when it comes down to a new missle system for space that can wipe out the Middle East a few times, but when it comes to the healthcare of it's own citizens then they put their foot down? LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...
 
I found this post on one of the links posted earlier interesting:

As Jon Stewart got Bill Kristol to admit last night, the government also does an excellent job of providing high-quality health care to the military (although Kristol seems to think that the rest of us poor slobs don't deserve it):
Bill Kristol Extended Interview | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

And, of course, members of Congress also get government-run health care. Somehow these facts never make it into the conversation.
 
So you're saying that the poor are already more than adequately served in this country in terms of health care?

Could you elaborate on how the Democratic Healthcare reform bill seeks to makes us all dependant on the state for our healthcare, and why, exactly, would the Democrats want this?

and one more question. ..

How is this:


the same as this:

Well, if the Democrats aren't really about health care, then it the Republicans better damn well get on their game and come up with some solutions of their own.

Just thought I'd sum up my unanswered questions for you, INDY, in one handy recap post.
 
I found this post on one of the links posted earlier interesting:

I literally stood up and cheered during that interview last week. Jon Stewart destroyed Kristol who, once again, showed his uncanny knack for, shall we say, 'not knowing what the hell he's talking about'. The best part is when Stewart asked him about the obvious fact of the troops getting government health care and Kristol responded with "They deserve it more". The audience booed him, rightfully, and Jon was incredulous. To paraphrase Jon said of course our veterans are worthy of the best, free health care imaginable, but how could he (Bill) say they deserve it but not every other American citizen who works hard and sacrifices, but still doesn't have the resources to pay big medical bills. Bill, like most Conservative blowhards, didn't really have a valid response.
 
And where's the evidence after 40 years, that the United States government can manage, administer and fund healthcare without going into debt?
But there's always another politician to say "If we just spend more money we can fix the system."
Now you might believe that but I know better.




would you support "free" healthcare for the unborn?
 
Just thought I'd sum up my unanswered questions for you, INDY, in one handy recap post.

Why don't you or another supporter of the bill tell me what I should like about it. Tell me what you like about it. Is it just the goals or can you point to specifics that you think are a really good ideas.

After all, I recognize our current system is in need of reform. I can see the problems of rising costs and gaps in coverage for Americans.

If we can't agree on everything, what in the bill could we agree on?

If this is a townhall, I've had my say. I want to hear those others in support.
 
What I like about HR 3200 (the version of the health care reform bill I read and no I didn't read it all):

Background, I work for a large university, our health care functions much like that of the government. We get to choose amongst several plans from several companies, including HMO's and our in house PPO. Our plans are actually quite affordable, why because there are so many employees that the university can negotiate good rates. This is essentially what the health care reform bill wants to do. They want to create a pool for individuals and small business to help get them a better rate and more options.

Additionally, there is actual reform to the health insurance process. Thankfully, I've been healthy and thankfully when my father got cancer he was working for the state and had good insurance. However, not everyone is that fortunate and this bill also has provisions for reforming insurance claims and of course the practice of not insuring people with previous conditions.
 
Anything that causes this many urban legends like "death panels" has to be awesome.

It gives wider coverage. A moral victory right there.

It doesn't allow pharma and insurance companies to set prices and control healthcare as much as they do now, it will force private insurance companies to actually be competitive for once.
 
Why don't you or another supporter of the bill tell me what I should like about it. Tell me what you like about it. Is it just the goals or can you point to specifics that you think are a really good ideas.

After all, I recognize our current system is in need of reform. I can see the problems of rising costs and gaps in coverage for Americans.

If we can't agree on everything, what in the bill could we agree on?

If this is a townhall, I've had my say. I want to hear those others in support.

Nice way to sidestep some tough questions, but okay. . .I'll let you get buy with it.

My research consisted of looking at the White House's website on what Obama wants in a health care reform package. I also read the TIME magazine cover article from two weeks ago that has a really handy users guide on how reform would affect various parties. I took a glance at the text of HR 3200, but it will take awhile to wade through that and I do have work I need to do today.

Based on all that, here's what I like (with the caveat that I understand that it may or not be in the current bill that's in Congress).

I like the idea of a public option for insurance.

I like the idea of stopping insurers from denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions.

I would be okay with making purchasing/having health insurance a requirement (like how it is with car insurance) but I'd also accept giving people the option to purchase insurance. I prefer the former because I think there are people out there who won't buy insurance if they don't have to, even if they can afford it, and those people end up costing us all when they show up at the emergency room. Still I know many would balk at the idea of being forced to buy insurance so I could live without that.

The big problem I would see with reform as I've described would be the cost involved, especially if you're talking about forming a huge new federal agency. Supposedly people paying into the pubic option could help pay for it, but the subsidies needed to cover everybody who can't afford to buy would be pretty big, I'm guessing. My hunch is that it will mean an increase in taxes.

I see a lot that the insurance companies would hate about this type of reform--if Congress simply passed a law that required everyone to buy insurance, I imagine the insurance companies would be elated with that.

Those are some of my initial thoughts.
 
There's lots of different options:

Health in France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Healthcare in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Health care in Japan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Healthcare in Taiwan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All these systems cost money. If the public wants an idea on how to save on health costs they should learn to eat better than McDonalds and put together a prayer or meditation practice to reduce stress:

YouTube - vital.signs.okinawa.diet.bk.c.cnn_576x324_dl.flv

YouTube - Secret of long life in Okinawa

YouTube - Matthieu Ricard: Habits of happiness

I personally would prefer at least a system that had competition in the delivery of the service even if the funding is collected via payroll taxes but none of that really matters if the culture doesn't focus on prevention. Catastrophic care (and pre-existing conditions at birth) won't be as costly to the public if the great majority of the population made better choices after being born healthy in the first place. The few times I ate at a fast food restaurant I didn't remember feeling satisfied or felt that I couldn't cook healthier, better tasting food myself.
 
Here is a link to a 1000+ page House version of the bill:
http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

I'd like to know if I'm understanding the choice to keep your current coverage.

This is on Page 16. A person would be grandfathered in if their coverage was in full effect before Y1 (Y1 is 2013). That means if you like your coverage you can keep it. However, at the bottom of page 16, the bill seems to forbid any change to your current plan. No change to terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing." Does that mean I'm not allowed to change my deductible or any provisions of my agreement? That's quite a clause.

Page 19. Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.

So that means there will be a Health Insurance Exchange for me to choose plans from. And I probably won't have a choice outside this exchange. Ok, how's it going to run?

Page 41. There will be a Health Choices Administration. The Administration shall be headed by a Health Choices Commissioner (in this division referred to as the ‘‘Commissioner’’) who shall be appointed by the President.

Page 42. The Commissioner is responsible for carrying out the following functions under this division: (1) QUALIFIED PLAN STANDARDS.—The establishment of qualified health benefits plan standards under this title, including the enforcement of such standards in coordination with State insurance regulators and the Secretaries of Labor and the Treasury.
(2) HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE.—The establishment and operation of a Health Insurance Exchange under subtitle A of title II.



So...if I want to make ANY change to my current plan, I am not able to. I AM allowed to choose the public plan, or choose from private plans in an Exchange, but only if the private plan is blessed by a presidentially-appointed "Commissioner."

I guess I'm skeptical of who will be making the decisions here.
 
at the bottom of page 16, the bill seems to forbid any change to your current plan. No change to terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing." Does that mean I'm not allowed to change my deductible or any provisions of my agreement? That's quite a clause.

My understanding is that your provider can't make these changes once the public plan goes into effect, but you can...

I guess I'm skeptical of who will be making the decisions here.
Do you honestly think you are making the decisions now?
 
So...if I want to make ANY change to my current plan, I am not able to. I AM allowed to choose the public plan, or choose from private plans in an Exchange, but only if the private plan is blessed by a presidentially-appointed "Commissioner."

I guess I'm skeptical of who will be making the decisions here.

Thanks for the link Bluer White. From my reading of the pages you cited, it sounds like the limitatons are placed on the insurance issuer, not on you. It seems to be designed to keep the insurance companies from changing your coverage after Year 1--you know suddenly saying--oh, sorry we can't cover that procedure anymore.

As for the Health Commissioner, I think that's just the person whose going to run the public program and coordinate all of this new policy. It doesn't really strike me as draconian at all. Is the program supposed to run itself. I would say, though that setting up an essentially new agency is bound to be expensive. It would be nice if it could at least pay for itself.

I do find it interesting that people are so worried about the government bureaucrats deciding what kind of medical treatments they'll pay for, yet they are okay with businessmen in the insurance industry making the exact same decisions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom